Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume III, National Security Policy; Arms Control and Disarmament, Microfiche Supplement

572. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, June 23, 1960

SUBJECT

• Disarmament and Nuclear Testing

PARTICIPANTS

• • U.S.
  • Secretary Herter
  • Under Secretary Dillon
  • Mr. Kohler—EUR
  • Mr. Sullivan—S/AE
  • Mr. Spiers—S/AE
• • U.K.
  • Ambassador Caccia
  • Lord Hood
  • Mr. Wiggin

The Secretary apologized for his delay in answering Selwyn Lloyd’s letter on the nuclear tests negotiations and explained that we had been concentrating our attention on solving the “black box” problem in connection with the seismic research program. He said that we had drafted a joint congressional resolution which had now been approved within the Government and which is being put before the Congress. He read the operative paragraph of the draft resolution. The Secretary observed that this move, if successful, should eliminate the present sticking points with the Soviets. If the Russians insist on more than we are willing to provide, so long as we are able to let them inspect the inside of the device, we are disposed to reject such further demands. Of course if we could not go ahead with the coordinated program on this basis the question of a moratorium on underground tests would be out of the window since the two issues were connected in the Eisenhower-Macmillan communique of March 29. Ambassador Caccia said that the resolution seemed to him a very fair offer and that he could not see any justification, speaking as a non-scientist, for giving the Soviets blue prints of the device, since we contemplated allowing full inspection of its internals. Mr. Dillon said there was to be a secret hearing at 10 o’clock June 24 on this subject before the Joint Atomic Energy Committee. Preliminary soundings indicate that the resolution should go through without difficulty.

The Secretary said that with respect to moving ahead on other matters he was in general agreement with the points made in Selwyn Lloyd’s letter. The only difference seemed to be on the question of tactics, with respect to making a concession on the composition of the control commission. We are fully prepared to accept parity but would not feel we should go ahead with this concession right now. We are prepared however to discuss the question of the length of the moratorium together with the quota number. The only issue on which our position is not yet in good shape is on the problem of high altitude controls. Ambassador Caccia said he would get these points to Mr. Lloyd right away and that he was sure there was no need for a formal reply to the letter.

Turning to the question of disarmament the Secretary said that we had also been thinking along the lines set out by Lloyd in his more recent message on the subject of general disarmament. He gave Ambassador Caccia the new U.S. revised Western Plan and referred to the paragraph providing for study of missile delivery systems, observing that this met the essence of the French position. Ambassador Caccia asked if we envisaged a series of subcommittees being established to deal with various aspects in the plan. Mr. Dillon said this was a possibility. The Secretary referred also to the paragraph in the proposal providing for a Security Council decision regarding transition from stage to stage, noting that this also met a French suggestion.

Mr. Dillon said it was our view that the revised plan would have a great deal of public opinion impact. The Secretary said there were not many changes in substance. He did wish to mention, on a confidential basis, that by the time the plan was presented, Mr. Eaton might be in a position to propose a substantial transfer of enriched uranium to peaceful uses after the cutoff.

The Secretary said that we are trying to make arrangements for Mr. Eaton to see Mr. Lloyd on Saturday morning (June 25) and to see Couve de Murville on Saturday afternoon (June 25). We hope it would be possible to have a meeting of the Five Western Disarmament Representatives in Paris on Sunday, June 26. If agreement is reached on the text it would be possible to give the plan to NAC on Tuesday, June 28. Mr. Dillon said that the plan has been forwarded to our Embassies in London, Paris, Rome and Ottawa with instructions that it be delivered to the Foreign Office the first thing tomorrow morning. The Secretary said that this plan could be characterized as meeting many of the Soviet positions. Where Soviet language was acceptable, we had actually adopted it.

Mr. Kohler informed Ambassador Caccia of our recent discussions with the French, who gave us a copy of their own paper the day before yesterday. Ambassador Alphand had called today indicating his unhappiness that we were going ahead with a revised proposal without commenting on the specific French suggestions. We had advised the French that their suggestions were essentially tactical and were not inconsistent with the paper we had prepared. We had made a great attempt to meet their point of view and we are prepared to discuss their ideas further in Paris. Mr. Dillon said that the French proposal was based on the assumption that the U.S. would not be able to make a significant policy move at this point. Since this assumption had proved incorrect the framework in which the French ideas had been suggested was changed and subject to re-examination.

Ambassador Caccia asked whether we still considered the Norstad plan a possibility, particularly in connection with the General Assembly. The Secretary referred to the language in the US paper providing for establishment of an inspection zone “including the US and USSR” as preserving the possibility of a zone in Europe. Mr. Dillon said that this might create some difficulty in Paris. In that case we were prepared to take out the word “including”. He said he was certain that the eagle eyes of the French would pick up this point.

1. Source: Positions in negotiations on disarmament and test ban. Secret. 3 pp. NARA, RG 59, Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 64 D 199.